2021 — NSDA Campus, WI/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a debate coach who has judged all types of debate for over 25 years. In recent years, I have focused mainly on public forum and occasionally Lincoln Douglas.
When judging public forum, I adopt the point of view of someone who is conversant in basic terminology and concepts but without any preconceived opinions on the merits of the resolution. The team that is more effective in using evidence and argumentation to convince me that their side should prevail gets the win.
I value clarity and precision in argumentation. While I can flow and comprehend more rapid delivery (I have coached policy), I think that public forum is not well suited to speed. If you are speaking rapidly because there is a lot you really need to cover, I am ok with that. If you are speaking rapidly because you feel it will confuse the other team, I will be annoyed. If you are speaking rapidly because you think it will impress me, it will not.
Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?
The summary is an important speech because it tells me how your side sees the entire round now that constructives and rebuttals are on the flow. The final focus is best spent weighing the round and telling me why your side prevails.
Crossfires are not speeches, so anything from a crossfire that you want on the flow must still be mentioned in a subsequent speech. However, I listen carefully to all crossfires, so I will be aware of whether their contents are being accurately characterized.
In Lincoln-Douglas, I prefer clarity and quality over speed and quantity. I appreciate direct refutation and line by line analysis. My preference is for a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of the resolution. If given a choice, I would like a round that had fewer but better arguments rather than a spread of arguments that all lack decent development.
I do value the traditional role of LD as the more philosophical type of debate, and the value and value criterion play a unique and helpful role in this. However, I am mindful of the fact that not all resolutions lend themselves to this tradition as well as others do, so I am ok with making adjustments accordingly. If I don't feel I've been given clear reasons why I should vote the way you want me to, I will tend to default to a traditional approach, so having the value and value criterion in place still serves a purpose.
Evidence is important in LD to back up your basic claims, but I'd rather have you give me a couple great cards along with excellent analysis then many cards without it.
In your last speech, please make it very clear to me why I should be convinced by what is on the flow to vote for your side.
I look forward to hearing you debate!
I have ten years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!
Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.
Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.
Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.
K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.
Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.
Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.
Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.
Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.
Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.
I did PF 4 years in high school and debated nationally in NCFLs and NSDAs. I will generally know what you are talking about.
PF: I am a flow judge and like to see a line-by-line in rebuttal. You should start weighing in summary and begin constructing voters for your partner to elaborate on in final focus. Your final focus should be almost entirely voters explaining how you have won and why your impacts outweigh your opponents.
LD: I have little experience with LD but I understand the general purpose and structure of the round. I like things to be well-explained and a significant portion of your speeches should be explaining why you win so I am left with little to calculate myself.
Speed: I can understand speed, but the faster you talk the less I will write down.
Also if it sounds like you can't breath, you're talking too fast.
Overall: Be civil. Don't yell at your opponents, partner or me.
I Debated for three years at Madison West HS in Wisconsin. I mainly did Public Forum Debate, but I also did Congress and Extemp. I am now an Economics major at the University of Wisconsin Madison.
Public Forum Paradigm:
This is not a requirement, but I would generally prefer if you sent your case doc to your opponents at the beginning of the round. Also as long as you're comfortable with it, I would like to be added to the email chain so that if I need to inspect evidence that is contested in-round it's easier for me to see what cards to ask for. This makes dealing with evidence problems in an online format easier. The amount of time I've seen wasted because people don't know what card they're asking for is ridiculous, if you send each-other your cases at the start of the round we can avoid that entirely.
If you have some time, try to read or at least skim the full paradigm. You don’t need to read my pet peeves at the bottom unless you want to. If you’re in a time-crunch, at least read the TLDR.
If you have any questions or have any problems with my paradigm, please tell me before the round or after the round at email@example.com. If you want additional feedback or advice, don’t be afraid to email me after the round.
I’m a flow judge but treat me flay for speed. I like fewer pieces of quality offense, a strong narrative, heavily dropping and consolidating arguments in Summary, and good narrative-based weighing in Final Focus with voters. No entirely new arguments after Rebuttal, no new supporting evidence after first summary. Cards should only be used when they offer unique expertise, data, or examples to an argument, I accept uncarded arguments. The bigger the claim/impact, the better evidence and warrants you need. Citation is author, source, date said once and then probably never again. Don’t use authors, or sources as taglines. I default to a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis framework. Use realistic impacts with smaller magnitudes over just pretending like everything causes World War 3. No Debate Theory unless its to address in-round unfair behavior, most especially discrimination. If your opponents, myself, or another judge discriminates against you in-round you should tell your coach and tournament organizers. I may drop you for discriminatory behavior, being excessively rude, or obviously and intentionally lying. Finally I will drop the IMF 900 million in poverty due to a recession card immediately. Se bottom explanation for why.
Structure and Comprehension
Speed: I am a former PF debater and I will be flowing. That said, please go slow and do not spread. What most debaters don’t understand is that even flow judges are going to miss or forget ~50% of what you’re saying. Slow down, emphasize, and potentially repeat key points that you want me to remember. In debater jargon: treat all flow judges as flay.
Quality vs Quantity/Creativity: The quantity and creativity of arguments presented is overrated in the PF debate space. Putting 6 contentions in a case or using some bizarre argument for the express purpose of having your opponents not respond adequately is bad for two reasons.
The first is that if you spend too little time on an argument or it’s too loosely connected to the resolution you’re rarely making the argument well. Your judge will be confused and unconvinced and will vote against you, even if you think you technically won. You’re not getting bad judges, you’re just not debating well. Solid well-executed stock cases beat wild, overly packed or strange cases on narrative and lay appeal most of the time.
The second is that you make the debate space worse. By trying to win via confusion and overwhelming your opponent you destroy the educational value of the activity and turn it into a nasty game of chess.
Constructive- Proposing framing and introducing offense. Remember to have a connecting narrative for your later speeches to use.
First Rebuttal- Primarily for introducing defense. Additionally for resolving framing disputes.
Second Rebuttal- Equal parts for rebuilding offense and introducing defense. Calling this speech a rebuttal is deceptive because it’s the first and last chance to introduce defense and your last chance to introduce supporting evidence for your case. It should be less like a rebuttal and more like a hybrid rebuttal-summary.
First Summary- Equal parts for rebuilding offense and for dropping arguments. That’s right, I want you to drop arguments like they're hot potatoes. First summary should be all about rebuilding your case narrative and consolidating around only the most important few arguments in the round. At the end of the speech I should know exactly the voters you’re going to have me vote off of in final focus. Don’t be afraid to hard-drop arguments. Trying to win everything is a recipe for losing the round.
Second summary- All narrative and dropping arguments. By this time you should be entirely done supporting your arguments and responses. I want to know the voters, I want to know the exact narrative you’re going to use to sell me the round, and if you have time, beginning to weigh here is key for selling me that narrative. The more you can make the second summary sound like a final focus, the better.
Final Focus- The most important speech of the round. All narrative and weighing. If you’re having to explain or add support for your arguments at this stage, you’ve already lost. The entire speech should sell me a cohesive story complete with voter analysis and weighing.
Links, Warrants and Evidence
Carded Arguments: An argument is a story, not a piece of evidence. Cards exist to offer expertise, data, and/or examples to your story to make it stronger and more convincing. Cards that do not offer any unique expertise, data, and/or examples are a waste of your time.
Uncarded Arguments: Uncarded arguments are very legitimate and under-utilized in PF. Cards are there to provide expertise and/or data. Expertise and data strengthen an argument, but are not required for an argument to be convincing. A good uncarded logical argument can defeat a carded argument as long as the logic isn’t trying to directly contradict the expertise or data provided by the card.
Warranting and Evidence Burden: I do not just assume that all claims are true until proven otherwise. The largest claims and most important impacts require the best evidence and warrants. As a judge I want to pick the team that makes the best arguments. When you make an argument with a strong claim or a very important impact, that’s going to heavily affect my decision. As a result, that impact carries a lot of risk that if it’s wrong, I might make the wrong decision. To minimize my risk of picking the wrong team I need to be more sure that what you’re saying/implying is true. That requires better warranting and evidence. If you do not provide better warranting or evidence I will either 1. heavily reduce the importance of the impact due to its risk, or 2. discard it entirely.
Citation: If you are providing evidence I need the author, source and date said once. After that, I don’t need you to cite the source in any way in consecutive speeches, please don’t waste your time.
Argument Taglines: If you are mentioning an argument or a card as part of an extension, please do not use the card author, source, and/or date as a tagline. Use a description or an incredibly succinct summary (ex. “Data privacy response”) This is for two reasons. First, I will not remember what your card says from the citation. Second, the core of a debate should be conflicting ideas not conflicting sources. By using an author name as a tagline you are defining your argument by who said it first, which isn’t really very convincing, distracts from your content, and wastes time.
New Arguments/New Evidence: Entirely new arguments (defined as being either offense or defense entirely unique from previous arguments) must be said before the First Summary. All carded evidence (even for supporting existing arguments and responses) must be brought up before the Second summary. In the second summary and final focus speeches the only things I should be hearing that I haven’t heard before are logical supports to previously existing arguments and weighing.
If you want me to think of an extension as important in the round you need to make it important. That means spending more time on it, rebuilding any flaws, and repeating key points in speeches.
That said, at the bare minimum to extend an argument on my flow I need the tagline, and any contested links, warrants, and impacts stated. If no part of your extension is contested I theoretically only need the tagline, but realistically if you want me to consider it important you need to spend more time on it.
Impacts, Weighing, and Framework
Framework: I default to a Utilitarian Cost Benefit Analysis Framework. Any proposed frameworks must explain why they’re preferred over the default. Because the utilitarian CBA is so common on the PF circuit as a framework I don’t want Debaters to waste time reaffirming a framework that won’t be contested. The Utilitarian CBA provides an easy way to weigh all sorts of varying impacts
Framework must be introduced in the Constructive speech. If you do not have a framework in your Constructive you may defend the default framework.
Weighing: Remember to use all four ways of weighing as they’re useful to you:
Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe, and Severity. PF often gets overly fixated on magnitude and while magnitude is probably the most convincing of the four, it isn’t sufficient. Arguing for Nuclear War with incredibly low probability and incredibly high magnitude isn’t the silver bullet to winning that you think it is. Try to be realistic with impacts as you weigh them. I don’t mind voting off of a very low-magnitude, high probability, high severity impact with a good narrative, warranting and evidence behind it.
Debate Theory, Speaker Points and Behavior
Speaker Points: Unless the tournament offers some sort of scale for judges to use for speaker points, I will award a 28-29 on average and will rarely go below 27 unless you were rude in round. If you’ve read this far, ask me my favorite color and I’ll bump up your speaks. I think that reading paradigms is a really good practice.
Debate Theory: I am not a big fan of Debate Theory (also called Progressive Debate) arguments in Public Forum. Not to be confused with arguments that are politically progressive (which are often very convincing), debate theory arguments debate conditions in the debate space rather than the resolution. There are two reasons I don’t accept most of these arguments. The first is that in the circuit I debated in, they were primarily used to disorient debaters unfamiliar with the national circuit or with theory, often from smaller programs, less privileged, or newer to the activity.
The second is that pre-prepared theory arguments allow one side to prepare for a debate that the other side is completely unaware they will be having. This creates an unfair situation.
If Debate Theory seriously helped less privileged debaters or smaller programs bring attention to injustice in the circuit, I would be more responsive. Instead I’ve found that they’re largely used by privileged debaters from large schools who were exposed to them on the national circuit who use them to win rounds cheaply and have the position and power to bring those issues up to people with influence outside of round.
The ONE exception to this is debate theory arguments surrounding something unfair, rude or discriminatory your opponents have done in a round that has put you at a disadvantage. This can be a very real issue, particularly with male debaters talking down to female debaters and when debaters are consistently misgendered. I think that pointing out these issues helps debate significantly and as a result, I will factor these arguments into my decision.
If the offending party is not your opponents but a judge, either myself or another judge on the panel, you can still run the debate theory (provided there is still time left in the round). That said, you should absolutely take further action, notifying your coach and the tournament so that they can respond adequately. If I or any other judge discriminates against you in Debate, it’s hard to address that in round given that the offending party would be writing a ballot.
Building off all of that, I do not require your opponents to run Debate theory to punish you for unfair or discriminatory behavior. If you are exceptionally rude, I may drop you. If you overtly lie in a round, I may drop you. If you say something discriminatory against your opponents I may drop you. Please do not lie or be rude to your opponents. PLEASE do not say discriminatory things against your opponents.
Economics Student Pet Peeves
In general I make a point not to intervene with personal knowledge into a debate. I will inform debaters during my RFD of things I thought they got wrong or could’ve done better, but it will not affect my decision with the below exceptions. These are things that just annoy me so much I’m putting them into my RFD so I can intervene.
US GDP is Roughly $20 Trillion: Please do not try to claim impacts to the US Economy anywhere immediately around or surpassing that number. Government programs will not annually cost that much, and unless a meteor vaporizes the country there will be no recessions that big either. Keep in mind this does not apply to wealth or debt, which could conceivably be much larger.
My Biggest Pet Peeve: The IMF card/ cards that cite the IMF saying that the next recession could push 900 million people into poverty. This is, in my opinion, the most mis-cited and absurd card that is widely used on the circuit.
Here is my reasoning for why its absurd.
First off, and most importantly, the statistic is as far as I can tell based off nothing. The IMF card cites a 2013 UN World Economic Situation and Prospects reports which has, as far as I could find, no mention of anything close to such a statistic in its 207 pages. Second off, this number is absurdly high. The highest estimates from the Great Recession have 100 million people going into poverty at most. In 2018, 8.6% of the global population or 736 million people lived below the international poverty line. By citing the 900 million number you are suggesting that this population would more than double, which is absurd. Even if you used a different measure for poverty, the likelihood of seeing such an increase is incredibly doubtful. A UN World Institute for Development Economics Research working paper published in April 2020 suggested that in the worst case scenario if the Covid-19 Pandemic caused a global consumption contraction of 20% the highest conceivable number of people that would be pushed into poverty is 580 million. To give you context most estimates of the Covid-19 Pandemic put global consumption losses at highest at about 5% for 2020. During the Great Recession from the peak Global GDP in 2007 Q4 to the lowest global GDP point in 2009 Q2 there was a 4.3% drop. The idea of a recession 4 to 5 times the magnitude of the Great Recession is an incredible claim and you would have to give me considerable evidence to that effect. Regardless, while poverty often compounds over time, poverty caused by temporary recessions (especially the Covid one) is largely temporary rather than long-term. So even if you somehow got access to an absurdly large recession 5 times larger than the Great Recession the likes we’ve never seen before you would have to prove that the global economy would turn that into a depression and stay at that level of complete collapse for a considerable time to gain access to 580 million people in poverty long term. Basically, there’s no way that whatever thing you’re debating could ever destroy the world’s economy so bad that you would have access to 580 million people in poverty, let alone 900 million.
In conclusion, this is a stupid, absurd statistic. Please stop citing it. If I see you citing it I will drop it off my flow immediately.
January 2021 edition
Please remember that one of the primary goals for competitive debate is engaging in civil discourse. As a judge, the first criteria I evaluate is civility. Debaters who demonstrate courtesy, good will, and generosity of spirit perform more effectively.
I expect a fair and honest debate from all competitors. Please consider what fair and honest means: If you are an experienced debater and you are running a K or CP, especially against a novice debater, you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Ks and CPs are complex devices intended for Policy Debate. If you apply them to an LD round you are changing the category rules in such a way that disfavors an opponent who has prepped for an LD round. If you plan on running a K or CP, my suggestion is you keep a back-up case in the ready AND prior to the round, you confirm that both your judge and your opponent are comfortable with you running a Policy device. If one of those answers is no, run your back-up case. I reiterate, if you run a Policy device without disclosing it to both your opponent and your judge you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Please do not conflate pre-round courtesy with disclosure theory.
On running counterplans and kritiks: Since these are strategies devised for Policy Debate and not as conducive for LD, they should be carefully crafted and run sparingly. That being said, I welcome a creative take on the resolution in the form of a counterplan or kritik. Bear in mind that I must be able to weigh the round with compatible parameters so if you do run a counterplan or kritik you must clearly define how the round is to be framed so your opponent may adequately respond to your case and I have enough criteria for evaluation. Counterplans must contain both an explicit values structure and CP framework. Kritiks must apply a primary line of argumentation originating in critical theory or cultural criticism. Please note: Ks and CPs place unnecessary burdens on the negative case that the neg must fully accommodate. I will not expect an opponent to refute complicated devices intended for Policy Debate without being provided the structural parameters to do so. Therefore, the burden for structurally framing the round falls on the Neg when running Ks and CPs.
Disclosure Theory: The ability to think quickly on your feet (adapting to your opponent during the round) is one of the most important skills a debater can cultivate and will be weighed more heavily than prepping out before a round. I won't judge against a debater who has chosen not disclose on the NDCA or any other wiki. Any time spent arguing on disclosure grounds (or out-of-round concerns) will be regarded as time that could have been better spent responding to what is happening in the round.
Another point to consider with fair and honest debating is intimidation. Please don’t confuse clash, meaningful offense or attacking an opponent’s case with aggressiveness or badgering during a round. Know that spreading in all its various forms is an intimidation tactic and that I consider spreading an equity and inclusion matter. If you are a fair and honest debater, then you cannot simply assume your opponent can accommodate lightning pace. Please be advised: Speed reading will heavily impact speaker points in a negative direction in addition to potentially losing the round.
If you are a speedy reader, but not intentionally spreading, modulate your pace. If I do not catch your framework due to unintelligibility or lack of clarity related to speed you may lose the round since I cannot adequately weigh your case against your opponent’s. I will not interrupt your speech to ask you to slow down. My expectation is a conversational pace.
Please be mindful of the debate format in which you are competing. If you are a Lincoln-Douglas competitor your primary goal is to engage in the realm of ideas, not policy. If the resolution leans heavily toward a policy topic, the best debaters will devise a case which is philosophical and reflective. When judging an LD round, I’m listening for original thinking, insightful analysis, logical reasoning, and summary skills.
I pay very close attention during cross-examination for strategic maneuvering that will allow a competitor to control the trajectory of the debate.
If you and your opponent craft similar frameworks (e.g, the same value or value criterion), please do not tell me “it is a wash.” Weighing frameworks is never a wash. Framework components do not cancel each other out. Argue your position with analysis and reasoning in order to identify why your case better meets the V/VC and by extension, the resolution.
If your value is morality, tell me what kind of morality and why it is the most suitable choice in the context of the resolution. Please don’t use circular reasoning - “because morality means my value criterion is good” or pretense such as “I choose morality because it encompasses all other values.” Simply reverting to the notion that the word “ought” in the resolution implies a moral imperative suggests that the debater has not spent much time researching the resolution in order to understand its assumptions and implications. When I evaluate a case framework, I am looking for depth suggestive of a debater who is wrestling with the ideas embedded within the resolution.
Do reiterate your impacts throughout every phase of the debate, but bear in mind that (for me) extremist impacts like extinction, nuclear war and planetary disaster are less important to the impact calculus as thoughtful and well-developed impacts germane to the resolution and your chosen framework. In other words, I will be swayed by impacts that are expressed through a philosophical line of inquiry or reasoned through in a way that reveals the most significant issues inherent within the resolution.
I will favor the debater who accurately summarizes evidence, evaluates it, contextualizes it, and most importantly, provides analyses that are both cogent and eloquent. Please take care that you do not mistake your evidence for your own original analysis. Be very careful of how you cut cards so the bulk of your case consists of your own reasoning and your own thoughts about the resolution rather than reading through your sources (reiterating someone else’s ideas). A helpful tip for developing your case and presenting it: think in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations.
Do outline your voting issues, but be wary of getting mired in the minutiae of technicalities that reduce the round to a “gotcha” game. Do not assume that the judge flows in the same way a competitor does. Be mindful of simplistic, but common errors like an unanswered point is equivalent to conceding that point. Technically speaking, in an LD debate round, it is not. If your opponent drops an argument, it is an opportunity for you to expound upon your own position with respect to that point. Signpost your refutations and avoid assertions like "My opponent dropped "X" argument, so you can "disregard it" or "flow that point to my side." Not every argument can be answered during the round. The best debaters will strategically choose which arguments are the most important ones to address. While clash is important, maximizing meaningful clash lucidly, concisely, and succinctly will likely win the debate. Represent your opponent's position accurately and do not claim that an opponent has dropped an argument if your opponent has not.
Economic arguments: All too often economic arguments take some form of: “X is too expensive because it costs Y.” This really isn’t a sound argument. An economic argument of quality should demonstrate some notion of economic theory to justify it rather than simply assuming economics itself is neutral. Be aware that modern economic theory originated in 18th century moral philosophy. All economic arguments should be purposeful and grounded in theoretical or philosophical principles. A case with primarily economic argumentation should be placed within an economic framework (structured into the value/value criterion). I am generally unpersuaded by economic impacts or assumptions that government spending or taxation is bad. The very purpose of the government is to tax and spend. Your goal in an LD round is to provide reasons for why the government (We the People) should tax or spend.
When judging PF I look for teamwork and collaboration -- how argumentation is extended between the two speakers and how well they complement each other. As in LD, I’m looking for excellent organization and critical analysis that addresses the resolutional “pith.” PF teams, please consider the LD issues noted above concerning technical minutiae, original thinking, sophisticated casing, and argumentation that is both sound and valid. I’m looking for original analysis and reasoning through the issues inherent in the resolution. One of my primary concerns in PF is crossfire. Please demonstrate the highest courtesy during crossfire. The team that can establish civil discourse during this phase of the debate will likely be favored in the event of a tie. Maintaining civility during crossfire will help the debater(s) control how the debate is framed for the judge.
As in LD, thinking in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations is essential for PF competition. Develop a few significant arguments with scholarly evidence rather than a large number of arguments so you can effectively utilize the limited time in a PF round. Varsity PF debaters — I look for seamless interaction between team members, the ability to crystallize key points, and to concisely summarize the logical components of an argument.
If I am your judge, please feel free to ask for clarification of any matter addressed in my paradigm.
Head Coach, Speech & Debate
Golda Meir High School
Excellent sportsmanship, respect for others, and adherence to the NSDA Code of Honor are expected of all competitors.
Code of Honor
“As a student or coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”
Humility: A member does not regard oneself more highly than others. Regardless of a person’s level of success, an individual always looks beyond oneself to appreciate the inherent value of others.
Equity: A member respects individuals and their individual differences as well as fosters equity, diversity, and inclusion. A member promotes empowerment for people from all backgrounds, including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and ability.
Integrity: A member is honest, ethical, and adheres to the competition and conduct rules of the organization. A member follows the NSDA discrimination and harassment policy and abides by the rules of their schools, tournaments, and localities.
Respect: A member demonstrates civil discourse in their interactions with others. A member maintains and contributes to a safe space and welcoming environment for all.
Leadership: A member is aware their words and actions influence others. A member commits to thoughtful and meaningful words and actions that reflect NSDA core values.
Service: A member exercises their talents to provide service to peers, community, and the activity. At all times a member is prepared to work constructively to improve the lives of others.
Your arguments and impacts should closely align with the resolution or the resolutional actor.
Systematically and concisely organize your rebuttals with clear signposting: Tell me what you are refuting. Refute it.
I look for sound reasoning in your argumentation. Your impacts should logically follow your arguments and link back to the resolution. Be wary of fallacious argumentation: straw man arguments, causation vs. correlation etc.
I am not fond of speed reading. My expectation is a conversational pace for the constructive and all subsequent arguments. Make use of your summary skills to keep your speeches well timed. If you would like for me to give warning, please let me know before the start of the round. Speed reading may negatively impact your speaker points and may result in loss of the round if your case is garbled due to speed.
I am a new parent judge. I did Parliamentary debate in college and policy debate and forensics in high school, and now work as an attorney. I prefer a speed and style of delivery that would be accessible and persuasive to a broad audience. I appreciate sound reasoning, clear organization, effective use of evidence, and responsiveness to the other side’s arguments.
Hi! I'm Josie. I did PF in high school for four years, as well as some other speech and debate (extemp, mock trial, congress, etc!)
Some primary things to know about my judging style:
I am definitely a flow judge and expect you to carry any arguments you want me to weigh through FF. When extending evidence, PLEASE give me a card name as well as the gist of your argument - don't just say EXTEND SMITH and expect me to know what you're talking about. I will most likely not extend it.
Speeches should cover both sides of the flow starting in second rebuttal. we LOVE clash!! please make relevant responses to your opponent's arguments and do not misconstrue them.
Please signpost! It's so helpful for me and a good habit to get into in general. I don't need you to give me a full off time road map, but please at least tell me where on the flow you're starting at before you speak so I can know where to write.
Weigh your impacts please! Quantified impacts are great but you don't need them to win if you can reasonably tell me why your impacts are stronger otherwise. I understand time can be tight, but just throwing a random number of hypothetical dead people at me in the last 2 seconds of FF is hard to make sense of and kinda strange in general.
Although I judge on the flow, other aspects of the round may factor into my decision.
A pet peeve of mine is people being passive aggressive or rude during debate rounds. do not do this. I may drop you. Let your opponents present their arguments fairly-- do not talk over them in cross or say that they dropped evidence / arguments that they didn't and expect me to believe you (please don't do this if you can help it. it tells me that you're either lying or weren't paying attention, neither of which are good). I don't need you to be super formal, just don't be an jerk its not that hard.
I also expect your arguments to make sense and be true, even if they are extended cleanly. While it's primarily the other team's responsibility to call you out on faulty arguments or evidence, I reserve the right to use my best judgement and may ask to see evidence if your case seems sketchy. It should go without saying, but arguments based on bigotry or conspiracy theories will get u dropped immediately. In general, if your argument is rooted in evidence and you know your sources and reasoning well, it shows and makes it much easier to vote for you. Conversely, it is much harder for me to vote for an argument built on a shaky foundation.
I also love a good crossfire and will be listening attentively to what you say during cross! Please be responsive to the questions you're asked and don't get too heated, it's just embarrassing for you tbh. I won't flow cross unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, but it will heavily influence your speaker points.
TLDR; i will flow, please signpost and weigh your impacts. be nice and don't run sketchy args.
I look forward to judging your round!
Hello my name is Aananya. I did PF 4 years in high school and debated nationally in NCFLs and NSDAs.
PF- I am a flow judge and I appreciate line by line rebuttal. I like to see clash between cases, tell me why your case is better than your opponent. Start to weigh in summary and begin constructing voters for your partner to talk about in final focus. Please note if you bring up anything new during final focus I will not flow it.
LD- I do not know much about LD but I understand how LD works. I would like to know why you win, so a portion of your speeches should be explaining why you win so I do not have to make my own conclusion.
Speed- I am fine with speed but if you start spreading, remember the faster you talk the less I can write down.
Cross X- I do not flow cross but if you want me write something down, let me know
If you have any questions let me know before the round.
Please be civil with each other.
Wanting to be an educator of some stripe, rhetorical coach, and political activist.
I was a public forum debater at George S. Parker High.
Tabula-rasa, within reason.
I like framework.
Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones.
Speak at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, if you think spreading will impress me, it will not.
Flow judge with a deep appreciation for rhetoric and analysis, add a healthy dose of that stuff
Crossfire should be Q and A, back and forth. Lets do that.
Collapse off bad arguments, tell me as clearly as you can what weighing you are winning.
Speaks are worthless, you'll get above a 29 barring self-destruction on an untold level.
Email chain for evidence exchanges, disclose your cases to me and your opponent.